19970826Comments.doc

BRAD PURDY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W WASHINGTON
BOISE ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EXCEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO OPERATE AS A LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER WITHIN THE STATE OF IDAHO.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. EXC-T-97-1

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission), by and through its attorney of record, Brad Purdy, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure issued on August 5, 1997, submits the following comments.
Excel Telecommunications, Inc., (Excel) currently provides interexchange service within Idaho, and has applied for a certificate to provide local exchange service as well. Although Staff agrees that Excel has met the technical requirements of the Commission with respect to filing its application and tariff, it opposes granting Excels request for a certificate. Staffs review of the Companys performance with respect to customer relations in its long distance operations leads us to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interest of the public to grant Excel a certificate to provide local exchange service.

Staff has examined the Commissions records of informal complaints, comments and inquiries for 1996 and year-to-date 1997. The records consist of the Commissions Consumer Assistance Staffs electronic documentation of conversations with Excels customers and various telecommunications companies representatives as well as correspondence, bills, and other written materials. The examination of records revealed a variety of problems encountered by Excel customers, including unauthorized switching of primary interexchange carriers, also known as slamming, billing errors, and lengthy delays in completing orders for new service or cancellation of existing service. In one instance, Staff verified that a customer was slammed with a forged letter of agency. A breakdown of complaints, comments and inquiries submitted to the Commission as of August 25, 1997, concerning Excel follows:

Category
1996
1997
Billing
17
12
Rates & Policies
8
0
Carrier Selection & Slamming
21
21
Miscellaneous
42
11
Total
88
44
Customers have been billed for fixed monthly service charges after cancellation of service, and have been charged high random rates by Excels underlying carriers due to errors or delays in completing service orders. There appears to be a pattern of miscommunication between Excel and local exchange companies and Excel and its underlying carriers. Customers who sign up for service with Excel through their local exchange company are particularly prone to encounter problems ranging from accessing the network to being properly billed. As a reseller of telecommunications services, this apparent lack of communication concerns the Staff.
One of Excels practices seems particularly egregious. Several instances of slamming were caused by the Companys practice of switching former customers back to Excels service without authorization after the customer had switched to another carrier. This practice has also led to instances where a former customers telephone number was slammed even though the former customer had discontinued service and the vacant number had been reassigned to another party.
Staff also urges the Commission to take note of two actions taken by other commissions. The Federal Communications Commission has sanctioned Excel for slamming interexchange service and forging letters of agency (Common Carrier Scorecard, Fall 1996, p. 3). On August 21, 1997 the Texas Public Utilities Commission rejected an application by Excel for provision of local service based on its history of providing interexchange service in Texas. (Attachment No. 1, Docket No. 17496).

Given Excel Telecommunications failure to provide good customer service in its interexchange operations, Staff anticipates that the Companys will demonstrate a similar level of performance in the local exchange environment. Therefore, Staff recommends that Excels application be denied.

Respectfully submitted this day of August 1997.

_____________________________________
Brad Purdy
Deputy Attorney General

Technical Staff: Beverly Barker

BP:bab/gdk\umisc\comments\exct971.bpb

STAFF COMMENTS 1 AUGUST 26, 1997